<p>You are too obvious</p>
<p>You might have gotten a few bites but you tried too hard</p>
<p>tk, of course there will be some famous alumni. But does that make the school famous? No.</p>
<p>I hadn’t heard about any of these schools until my 2nd year in college, and I went to an Ivy League. What accounts for the difference between how everyone knows about the Ivy Leagues and state flagships and how no one knows about these schools? The resource point is true as well- you won’t see facilities as developed as the top research universities.</p>
<p>If you guys haven’t figured out he is a ‘■■■■■’ by now: I don’t know what to say</p>
<p>Yeah, as usual, typical CC posters who just accuse people who they disagree with as being trolls. </p>
<p>Nostalgic- I don’t deny Pomona is a great institution, but I don’t see how it beats any of the schools I mentioned in my previous post. Sorry.</p>
<p>How would you know? You just created your account today</p>
<p>Metronomic, pretty sure you’re a ■■■■■, but if not then I would recommend that you educate yourself on colleges before trying to form an opinion on them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They are very small, expensive, and (unlike state universities) concentrated in a relatively few states. So they are not well known among internationals, first gens, or the American hoi polloi. Among affluent, well-educated people (especially on the East Coast), they are well known and respected.</p>
<p>Look at matriculations from old, high-end boarding schools:
[Choate</a> Rosemary Hall: Academics » College Counseling » Matriculations](<a href=“http://www.choate.edu/academics/academics_college_matriculations.aspx]Choate”>http://www.choate.edu/academics/academics_college_matriculations.aspx)
[College</a> Counseling - St. Albans School](<a href=“http://www.stalbansschool.org/page.aspx?pid=722]College”>http://www.stalbansschool.org/page.aspx?pid=722)
[Phillips</a> Academy - College Matriculations & School Profile](<a href=“http://www.andover.edu/ACADEMICS/COLLEGECOUNSELING/Pages/SchoolProfileCollegeMatriculations.aspx]Phillips”>http://www.andover.edu/ACADEMICS/COLLEGECOUNSELING/Pages/SchoolProfileCollegeMatriculations.aspx)</p>
<p>Or, look at where college professors send their kids:
[url=<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-37244508/where-professors-send-their-children-to-college/]Where”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-37244508/where-professors-send-their-children-to-college/]Where</a> Professors Send Their Children to College - CBS News<a href=“%22Children%20of%20university%20faculty%20are%20about%20twice%20as%20likely%20to%20select%20liberal%20arts%20college%20than%20children%20of%20parents%20earning%20more%20than%20$100,000%20a%20year.%22”>/url</a></p>
<p>Or, look again at the lists of notable alumni above. Try to find similar lists for state universities that enroll 10x - 20x as many students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you have to look closely at the criteria. LACs have disadvantages, but also some distinct advantages (in particular, smaller classes and more faculty attention). So, one reason a few LACs might “beat” more famous schools is due to a higher level of student satisfaction (which is an important element of the Forbes criteria).</p>
<p>You mentioned facilities, which at some LACs are superb. Middlebury College has a stunning new college library and many other impressive facilities. Just about every selective LAC seems to have a new science center within the past ten years. Of course, a LAC doesn’t have the scale to support a 5 million volume library or a large, state of the art observatory. On the other hand, Swarthmore, Amherst, Williams, Pomona and Grinnell all have per student endowments that rival Stanford’s … and their money is ALL focused on undergraduates.</p>
<p>Anyone know how Pomona went from 23 to 9 in just one year? I don’t think the statistics change that rapidly…</p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>2009 Forbes Ranking</p>
<h1>200 University of Michigan - Ann Arbor</h1>
<p>(The Year Prior to Common App for Michigan)</p>
<h1>361 Ohio State University - Columbus</h1>
<p>Source: [America’s</a> Best Public Colleges - Forbes.com](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/06/best-public-colleges-opinions-colleges-09-top.html]America’s”>America's Best Public Colleges)</p>
<p>2012 Forbes Ranking</p>
<h1>57 University of Michigan - Ann Arbor</h1>
<p>(Improved by 143 spots in 3 years)</p>
<h1>188 Ohio State University - Columbus</h1>
<p>(Improved by 173 spots in 3 years; The Year Prior to Common App for tOSU)</p>
<p>In Conclusion: Both schools are certainly on the rise based on Forbes Ranking!! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Recognition =/= quality</p>
<p>Penn State might as well be the best school in the nation (not to take anything away from Penn St, it’s a great school).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It really doesn’t show.</p>
<p>Name isn’t everything. Having a big name does NOT say anything about how good your school is. Harvard is world renowned, yes, but it spends most of its resources on its graduate schools. Harvard is famous because of Harvard Med, Harvard Law, Harvard Business, and their alumni. I repeat, NAME has NO BEARING on how GOOD a school is. Just because you wear brand name clothing does not guarantee that your clothing is of better quality than any generic brand.</p>
<p>I think Sparkeye’s post pretty much shows that Forbes rankings are terrible</p>
<p>^^ Oh well, in all fairness, Michigan State University (MSU) also had jumped from #341 to currently #250 on Forbes Ranking in the past 3 years, an improvement of 91 spots. Go State!! :p</p>
<p>Intersting updates in the rankings. Here’s some interesting changes from last year:</p>
<p>UC Berkeley (from 70 to 50)
UCLA (from 55 to 45)
Michigan (from 93 to 57)
Virginia (46 to 36)
Penn (52 to 17)
Columbia (from 42 to 8)</p>
<p>Cornell is the only college i’ve seen that stayed exactly the same (51) and dartmouth’s the only one i’ve seen so far which has decreased its ranking (from 30 to 34)</p>
<p>[America’s</a> Top Colleges - Forbes](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelnoer/2011/08/03/americas-top-colleges/]America’s”>America's Top Colleges)</p>
<p>Here’s Noer’s companion ranking piece for this year:</p>
<p>[America’s</a> Top Colleges - Forbes](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelnoer/2012/08/01/americas-top-colleges-2/]America’s”>America's Top Colleges)</p>
<p>EDIT: noticed this in Noer’s article for this year:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And to just call it out, the Duke boosters posting on Forbes are pretty stupid (no offense Goldenboy.) They’re complaining that Duke’s ranked ‘too low’ when it’s university rank, of 13, isn’t much lower than its US NEWS rank of 10. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.forbes.com/colleges/duke-university/[/url]”>http://www.forbes.com/colleges/duke-university/</a></p>
<p>One could make the case that Duke should be ‘top 5’ but i’m unaware of any ranking where Duke’s top 5.</p>
<p>Many people are thrown off by the fact that universities and LACS are combined with one another in this ranking. My biggest complaint of the Forbes ranking is that there’s no way to filter out between universities and LACs (or at least no easy way.) This would be useful since they’re essentially different beasts, and Forbes allows this distinction, but decided not to make a filter for it.</p>
<p>As a final point, although Berkeley DOES crack the top 50 (contrary to a point i had made earlier,) i find it humorous that UCLA and Berkeley’s US NEWS ranks are basically inverted by Forbes (22 and 25 for research universities respectively.)</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure Haverford dropped from number 9 last year to 27 or something this year. That’s really random.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Schools don’t improve that much in 3 years. The ranking criteria change, or the weights change, or the rate-my-professor results change with a new cohort of students. Forbes is tweaking its methodology. It’s an unstable ranking (compared to USNWR, in which schools don’t move more than a couple places year to year). </p>
<p>Let’s assume the best about rate my professor. Assume that for every school, it’s a large representative sample that accurately reflects the performance of each professor (not just popularity or satisfaction with grades). In that case, what would it tell you to see large swings in the results from year to year?</p>
<p>Presumably, every cohort (certainly every individual) does have a somewhat different classroom experience depending on what courses are selected, what professors are available, and what those students put into their classes.</p>
<p>Here’s the justification of why they use Ratemyprofessor</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s their justification for their validity in using RMP</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“CollegeLifeHelper.com - Helping College Students Online!”>CollegeLifeHelper.com - Helping College Students Online!;
<p>It’s still flawed though. UCLA, for example, has its own website (bruinwalk) where people go to rate professors. It’s unclear, however, whether this works to its benefit or its detriment.</p>
<p>Students will rate professors who give out A’s like popcorn higher than those who don’t. Read into that what you will.</p>
<p>I have absolutely no problem with so many LACs appearing in the top ranks on a survey like this. Obviously, LACs are not for everyone; if you want to study engineering or undergrad business, for example, LACs generally are not for you (with a few notable exceptions in engineering). But I wouldn’t be at all surprised if overall student satisfaction rates (and teacher ratings) are higher at LACs than at research universities, given the more intimate setting and closer student-faculty contact. For many (not all) students, LACs provide a superior educational experience.</p>
<p>That general comment aside, I think the methodoloy here is so deeply flawed that it’s risible. PayScale.com’s flaws have been exposed endlessly on CC. RateMyProfessor.com? Really? Who’s Who? Good gravy, even if that were a representative list of who’s achieved prominence in their respective fields, and I’m pretty sure it’s not, that’s mainly going to tell us about the achievements of people who graduated from college 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Talk about looking in the rear-view mirror. Its relevance for determining where a school is today is tenuous, at best. </p>
<p>Or how about percentage of graduates earning Ph.D.s in a 3-year period, 2008-2010? Well, that’s kinda dumb. First of all, that metric is going to favor LACs and research universities that focus somewhat narrowly on the arts and sciences because undergrads in pre-professional programs, say, undergrad business, by and large don’t go on to get Ph.D.s; they get what they need at the undergrad level. It also discounts those who go on to get medical, law, or graduate business degrees, who may in fact be among the best and most successful students as undergrads, and who may well be pursuing a more sound and sensible career path than those going on to earn Ph.D.s only to become overeducated cab drivers and pizza delivery workers. Especially when you consider they’re focusing on Ph.D.s earned in the period 2008-2010, when hiring of new junior faculty virtually shut down at many colleges and universities in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Not to knock those who earned Ph.D.s in this period, or at any time; that’s a major life accomplishment and perhaps it has inherent value. But given the bleak academic job market in so many fields, you have to wonder whether some of those pursuing Ph.D.s these days are there simply because they lacked the vision, marketable skills, or career planning savvy to follow some other path to a more employable future.</p>